Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 49 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. McLean.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. McLean Anchor | green | “is not a vehicle for offering the view of the witness about a series of facts that the jury can evaluate for itself or an opportunity to express a view on guilt or innocence.” | 16 |
| 2 | State v. Lazo | green | “neither a police officer nor another witness may improperly bolster or vouch for an eyewitness' credibility and thus invade the jury's province.” | 16 |
| 3 | State v. LaBrutto | green | “witness must have actual knowledge, acquired through his or her senses, of the matter to which he or she testifies.” | 10 |
| 4 | State v. Lazo | green | “in an identification case, it is for the jury to decide whether an eyewitness credibly identified the defendant.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.